Rail: The Case for "Interstate II"

People identify me with railroad issues and advocacy. They forget that I came out of the highway lobby. As late as 1987 I was active in promoting a $1.6 billion, 1077-mile, 4-lane highway development program for my home state of Mississippi. During my business career I have owned five auto dealerships and an air charter service. My first involvement at the federal level was in highway safety. President Nixon named me to the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee. In 1975 President Ford appointed me to the National Transportation Policy Study Commission which was chaired by Bud Shuster. I led the subcommittee on advanced technology.

I went into this process a strong believer in highway transportation. After three years I was transformed into a believer in inter-modal transportation. Those sentiments were confirmed by my later work as Federal Railroad Administrator under President Bush, which also brought me into contact with leaders in aviation and transit. My comments reflect nearly thirty years of hands-on experience.

Forty years ago America embarked upon the Interstate Highway System. We built 46,000 miles of multi-lane routes without stoplights or grade crossings. It was a grand achievement. But if you think about it, the interstate system was not designed for high-speed travel. In most states the top speed limits are only five miles an hour above those posted on the conventional numbered roadways of the 1950’s. The great benefit of the interstates was that we increased capacity by a large factor, and avoided the stoplights, traffic jams, and slow-downs that held average speeds to 50 miles an hour or less.

The interstate system had dramatic impacts upon mobility, economic growth and transportation efficiency. But its development created problems that we did not consider important at that time. Some urban areas experienced economic growth, which was spurred by their access to modern highway corridors. Others confronted more disruptive consequences. Urban interstates also became commuter routes, which fragmented downtowns and helped spread residential and commercial development to widely scattered suburbs. Many city centers were devastated, and many small towns withered as the new routes chose green-field rights-of-way.

Few people worried about air pollution in the 1950’s. In one respect our air had become cleaner because Americans of that era had switched from coal furnaces and coal-fired industrial boilers to cleaner units which used natural gas or electricity. Meanwhile, our modern highways stimulated the explosion of personal transportation by automobile, instead of public transportation by transit or rail. By the 1970’s, vehicle emissions represented the primary source of urban pollutants.

For a time, Detroit built smaller cars, but the growth in overall numbers of trucks and automobiles soon offset the pollution savings. Local governments chose to pursue industrial polluters instead of confronting the tricky problem of restricting autos and trucks. The result was to drive manufacturing out of urban counties.

Today, commuters coming to the city to work in service industries pass outbound commuters headed for factories, which have relocated to the urban fringe. City governments are losing the battle against air pollution, and have resorted to such strategies as urging residents not to run their lawn mowers on high-ozone days or avoid fueling their autos until after dark. Yet most large cities will flunk the new EPA air-quality standards.

Interstates are regarded as safer than conventional highways, but higher vehicle counts, rush-hour traffic jams, and rising driver frustration are degrading the safety performance. Highway fatalities remain at an unacceptable 40,000+ per year. We would not tolerate this situation in air or rail service.

Only in recent years have transportation engineers and analysts begun to focus on these impacts. They commonly are referred to as "externalities" -- the costs of pollution, energy waste, land disruption, accidents and time wasted in traffic jams. These costs sometimes are hidden, but they are real. More to the point, highway user fees do not cover them. A study conducted for the American Trucking Association concluded that the trucking industry alone was responsible for $30 billion in annual costs which exceed the user fees it pays. Those costs have been transferred to the general taxpayer and to the consumer in the form of higher prices. And that's only part of the true cost of these external impacts.

Right now, our highway and airway-based passenger system is ailing. Highway and airport gridlock is getting worse, and we have found that we cannot afford to build our way out of this gridlock. Hundred-million-dollar interchanges only move traffic jams to new locations. Highway engineers now recognize in most cases that adding lanes to urban interstates won't solve the problem. Congestion is worse. Rush hour in Chicago now covers eight hours per day. Average speeds in big-city downtowns are slower than they were 100 years ago, and the true cost of operating a new automobile is in the 40-cents-a-mile range and rising. It's currently about $6,000 a year. That works out to 500 after-tax dollars per month to move you an average of 1,200 miles a month. That's pretty expensive to move your body in your car 15,000 miles a year.

Aviation's ability to expand is on a par with the problem of legroom in its passenger seats. The cabin can be reconfigured to add an inch or two, but that's about all. Load factors are at record levels. Passengers are furious over delays and overcrowding. With Herculean effort we are able to add an airport like Denver International once every 20 years. Alternatives such as VTOL aircraft have stalled out. Airport managers' visions now are limited to their existing property boundaries. A few airport commissions, like those in New Orleans and Miami, are trying to bring high-speed rail to their terminal escalators, but most airports are not.

It has become clear that we cannot solve our transportation needs of the 21st Century just by adding ever-more-costly highway lanes. This approach simply is not sustainable. When I use the term "sustainable", I intend it to mean a system that we can afford to build, and a system whose adverse impacts upon safety, land use, energy consumption and air quality are held to acceptable limits.

As I thought about how to overcome these challenges, I was drawn to our recent experience in inter-modal transportation. What has taken place during the past 20 years is nothing short of revolutionary. Inter-modal transportation has become the global standard for moving freight -- using a system, which is sharply focused on speed, safety, reliable scheduling and economic efficiency. Today, that network emphasizes moving freight in North America and passengers in Europe and Asia. It is beginning to include passenger service in the United States.

The global high-speed inter-modal freight system builds on the strengths of each mode that have become partners in offering service. It also makes use of the versatility of the cargo container. Cargo ships and airplanes span the oceans. The freight railroad is the high-speed, long-distance transportation artery on the land. The truck provides local feeder service at origins and destinations. Cargo airplanes deliver high-value specialized freight. This system works -- but it urgently needs dramatic improvements to its land component in order to handle growing volumes of containers delivered by ship and airplane.

Modern, high-efficiency, high-capacity inter-modal terminals are key to the system, providing almost seamless interchange. Secondary rail and highway routes support the inter-modal system and connect cities, rural regions and individual freight customers to the main-line corridors. Today, a double-stack train leaving a coastal port can replace 280 trucks, run at speeds up to 90 miles an hour on the western railroads and afford as much as nine times the fuel efficiency of container transport by highway. Overall, the operational and economic efficiency of freight's inter-modal network conserves fuel, reduces other environmental impacts and is significantly safer. It represents the most economically and environmentally "sustainable" approach to transportation services.

Meanwhile, this new inter-modal science is redrawing the railroad map of North America, linking the populations and economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in a true "North American Rail System." Our continental network serves 90 states and provinces with 240,000 miles of routes and almost 400 million people. Most of its main lines are in excellent shape.

Over $60 billion in private funds has been spent for upgrading to heavy-duty welded rail. Another key point is this -- customers are driving the inter-modal freight network. North American customers suffer when it comes to moving people. Passengers take what the modes have to offer, shuffle between terminals, wait at the curb for the hourly bus downtown, or head for the latest addition to the airport parking garage, where we fork over above-market rates for the "privilege" of being an airline customer. Or we find ourselves at the mercy of higher rental car prices.

One could make the case that the worst defect of our passenger transportation system is the limited number of choices it offers. Residents of cities under 100,000 population often have only one practical option for inter-city travel -- the private automobile. Where bus and Amtrak service exist, the frequencies often are insufficient to meet the customer's needs. Airlines have retreated from short-haul markets. Where air service remains, the fare levels have driven people back to their automobiles.

It seems to me that our success in freight inter-modal points the way to the most promising strategy for transportation improvements in the years ahead. I call it "Interstate II." It is a new vision of truly high-speed inter-city travel that is based upon steel, not pavement. The concept is not radical. It combines the proven efficiency of rail transportation with the strengths of the inter-modal system. Interstate II can take advantage of rights-of-way that already exist -- both rail and highways.

Interstate II already is under way. The New York-Washington Northeast Corridor has been in place since the 1970’s. [Publius note: Actually since 1910.] High-speed trains will serve Boston later this year. Turbo-trains now operate on the Empire Corridor in New York State. Washington, Oregon and British Columbia are developing a high-speed route in the Pacific Northwest. Eight years ago Congress authorized five new high-speed rail corridors. Today, with the TEA-21 Act, thirteen have been approved for development. When Congress voted $2.3 billion in capital funds for Amtrak, it sent a message that inter-city rail passenger service is here to stay. It is interesting to note that Amtrak's package express business is booming, because express companies cannot expand if they are limited to clogged highways. Interstate II will attract mail and package express business away from highways and airways, adding to the new system's revenues, and helping to share the increased traffic loads that the other modes confront.

The evolution of Interstate II reminds me of the conditions that prevailed during the decade prior to our construction of the first interstate routes. The old two-lane roads were not adequate for traffic volumes. Several states took the lead in building toll roads -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas and Oklahoma. Important segments of "Interstate I" already were in operation before Congress voted to launch that project.

The same thing is happening in the 1990’s. These state and regional initiatives represent the beginning of a network of high-speed rail lines. Many of them will parallel interstate highways. During the first quarter of the 21st Century, I believe that we can build about 20,000 miles of corridors capable of running trains at 90 to 150 miles per hour. As much as another 10,000 miles of high-quality conventional rail routings will augment that network.

Often, we will be able to use the same right of way that freight railroad now occupy, if we deal with a number of key issues, including grade separation and liability. An important element of Interstate II is the requirement to eliminate at-grade highway-rail crossings. Many of them can be closed, because they are unnecessary. Others will require separation. The remainder can be fitted with high-tech crossing devices. We cannot have efficient rail corridors, conventional or high-speed, if trains encounter grade crossings every mile in the country and every block in town. Some people will shy away from the crossing-closure issue as too controversial. But think back to the 1950’s. We closed tens of thousands of road intersections when the Interstate highways were built.

For Interstate II to function properly, we also must create terminals to transfer passengers and freight among modes and routes. Fast, modern and highly efficient inter-modal terminals and yards are essential to freight's inter-modal system, providing "seamless" service. Get off an airplane at Dulles or Denver airports and you are reminded that seamless service hasn’t arrived. The seams are ripped apart just on the other side of the baggage claim.

Another important element of Interstate II will be the city center terminal. The city center terminal serves the inter-modal passenger network. It also serves cities both large and small and helps to revitalize the downtown. These facilities should be developed by local governments, just as they built and financed airports. City center terminals can be hubs for people and retailing. In larger cities they can provide a financial contribution to the overall corridor development project.

Amtrak will have a key role in the inter-city passenger component of Interstate II. But we need to start thinking about Amtrak in a more realistic context. Amtrak should be in the business of moving people inter-modally, in partnership with inter-city bus companies and local transit, but not owning track or terminals. Amtrak should operate and be treated like an airline. Airlines don't build airports. They don't carry those debt costs on their books. If airlines had been compelled to finance airports, they would not have had the capability to undertake the remarkable expansion of fleets and service that has occurred during the past forty years. What's fair for airlines ought to be fair for Amtrak, which today is burdened with aging station facilities that in many cases are an embarrassment, which discourages use.

For the equivalent of two cents on the motor fuel tax, one penny at the federal level and a second penny from the states, America could have within twenty years' time a network of high-speed rail corridors that approaches the scale of the Interstate Highway system. That commitment of fuel tax dollars would offer a powerful incentive to additional private investment as well. States and cities should be partners in the process, bringing additional revenues to the table. Again, we are talking about the equivalent of one cent on each state's motor fuel tax. Some people will argue that motor fuel taxes should only go to highway projects. But highway construction is not solving the gridlock problem. More important, the existing level of highway user fees doesn't even come close to covering the costs that highway transportation now inflicts upon our economy and society. More to the point, it is not building the system we need, one that captures the safety and capacity of the 21st Century inter-modal passenger and freight network. Cities, towns, counties and citizens already are paying for that funding gap in many indirect ways. Law enforcement costs. Emergency services costs. Land lost to highway rights-of-way that goes off the tax rolls. Pollution rules that drive industrial jobs out of urban counties despite the fact that most of the emissions are highway-related.

Aside from the obvious benefits from Interstate II, I favor it because there are no alternatives. If trends of the 1980’s and 1990’s persist into the new century -- and there is no reason to believe that they will not -- conventional solutions based upon individual modes simply cannot cope with the growth. Does anyone here seriously believe that we can double the capacity of our urban highway system within the next 15 years? The price tag for just a 10 percent increase would be staggering. And does anyone think that we will add eight or nine airports on the scale of Denver International? I would be surprised if we completed even one of them.

We are long overdue in coming to grips with the huge costs of trying to make the highways and airways solve all of our transportation needs, especially since there are efficient alternatives. It is our job to convince the American people and their opinion leaders that Interstate II is possible and is the obvious solution to our mobility needs for a new century. Rail corridors will prove to be cheaper than hundred-million-dollar interchanges that only relocate traffic jams. They will be safer than 43,000 deaths per year on America’s roadways.

This new ethical inter-modal transportation system will conserve fuel, reduce pollution and be less disruptive in using land. And just as America's toll roads used private money to finance construction, Interstate II can attract major private investment cost sharing. Private money can be applied to construction, operations, station development and equipment -- especially modern passenger, mail-and-express train-sets.

How many times have you heard people ask, "Why can't we have trains like those in Europe?" The answer is, We can. It's a question of priorities, strategy, partnerships, leadership and policy. We need to explain to the people of America that they can have a customer-driven passenger system. They can have choice within that system, and it doesn't have to cost 40 cents a mile to get anywhere. Americans also can obtain an even more efficient, low-cost freight and express network that will reap even more benefits through its inter-modal design. Americans can have interstates of steel for less cost than interstates of concrete and asphalt. And Interstate II will provide plenty of work for the traditional highway-builders.

Building this very safe, 20,000-mile, grade-separated, high-speed inter-city rail network is the key to the quality of transportation services during the next century. The money is there to do the job. The "road gang's" next goal should be to build it. It is up to you. I believe that the concept makes sense. I hope that you will agree.

You've put in here a number of times that you think the car and the interstate highway system it created are destroying the classic town concept that you love oh so much. I have shown that the initial destruction of small towns started when the railroad didn't go to them all and has recently accelerated because the economy has changed, especially in the root area of providing raw materials and harvesting food which is what small towns did. They have no money coming in because they have nothing to sell to people other than each other and small economies can't survive that way (because they'll need supplies from the outside world, that sends money out, if they can't send enough goods out to get at least that much money back the town will starve).

Now refute it. This is the third time I've put this forth and the only thing I've heard from you since the first one is that I'm a car lover that doesn't read what you write.

I agree that a major problem with railroads is that they don't go anywhere. Part of what I'm arguing for, I suppose, is increased public sector investment in creating light rail routes that service small and medium sized cities. Take South Florida, for example. They recently built a "light rail" system that runs from Miami all the way up to Jupiter. It stinks.

There's only one stop per town. That stop is usually 10 miles West of the Intracoastal. Essentially, you have to drive 15 minutes, park, get on the train, then take a cab for another 20 minutes if you want to go anywhere.

No doubt this system will be cited by opponents of light rail everywhere as an example of why "railroads just don't work."

Now....here's my big admission: they may be right. We may already be so far down the track (if you will) of being a car and road-oriented society that overlaying a new infrastructure of light rail is not feasilble. Our towns and cities, unlike those in Europe, have grown up in the car age and are therefore much more spread out. Having spent a lot of time in South Florida recently, I can say that it would take a monumental investment to make the train a realistic option for most people. For Heaven's sake, you've now got people living practically in the middle of the Everglades and working in Ft. Lauderdale!

The car has fundamentally altered the sense of scale in these towns, and there is probably no going back...ever. THAT is what I have been lamenting. I have admitted that I am probably just a "nostalgic curmudgeon," and I have no illusions that mere legislation or activism could (or should) be used to turn back the clock. But when I go to my hometown in Indiana, it makes me sad to see how the town has basically abandoned the beautiful, historic, and now decaying Main Street area in favor of (imho) somewhat souless and ugly strip malls near the highway.

Now, to the question: do I blame cars for this? Yes, though I do not blame cars exclusively. I also happen to agree with you that cars have been a tremendous and necessary engine of economic growth. On the whole--and it pains me to say it--I would even have to say that their impact has been largely "positive" in the sense that what we have gained outweighs what we have lost.

However, I am an anti-modernist at heart. Like Tolkien, I guess, who saw the first encroachments of factories and new suburbs on his West Midlands English countryside and knew that many beautiful things would pass out of the world as a result.

Among other things, I hate (most) International Style buildings, cell phones, and magazines.

More than you asked for, but I figured you deserved it since I flew off the handle at you.

The idea of loading your car is a good one that I've never though of before. The Vegas/LA run is good because of the relative cheapness of building the line in the middle of the desert, and the amount of people who would frequent the line.

Thanks. I think that in order for rail to work (at least out west) is to consider the connection between the stations and the destinations. If that means loading up cars, then so be it.

I feel it is our nature as Americans to desire the freedom of movement that the car allows. In Europe they just do not understand that desire like we do. And that feeling is that much stronger out west. It may work in New York or Boston, but it is not likely to work in Fresno or Nevada. That desire for freedom of movement is why I think rail will never work without address the station-to-destination issue.

As an aside, does anybody remeber It (or Ginger, or whatever it is they ended up calling it)? What was the major comment here about that? "Where do I hold my groceries?" Or "What do you do when it rains?"

Now we're getting somewhere. Cells phones are nasty. My only problem with magazines is that there are so damn many of them, especially of the "specialty" kind (no one has yet convinces me that running is such an amazingly technical and fascinating thing that it requires 5 monthly publications).

I don't think cars caused urban sprawl so much as they caused urban merger. The Tucson area (I always have to deal with home because that's where I know) used to be a dozen different little towns. Most of the area now known as Tucson was either a town in its own right or space between town (which might or might not be developed). But rapid transportation caused all those places to get gobbles up. In sheer land mass Tucson is a huge city (about 25 miles by 15 miles), but it grabbed onto the motife of the west (multi-story building are the exception here, unlike back east).

The Miami-Jupiter line sounds like an extreme example of the basic problem all mass transit has. Basically they can be considered under two words: stops and schedules. Unless you're one of the luckiest SOBs on the planet no form of mass transit goes from your front door to the front door of where you work. This isn't anybody's fault, it's a matter of logistics if the bus stoped at every single house it would never get anywhere. On top of that you have to coordinate the you schedule with theirs, often you have to make connections so you also need to coordinate their schedule with itself. That's the stuff cars provide that mass transit (at least as it is currently understood) can never beat.

Now, in the spirit of goodwill, cause deep down I am a nice guy just don't tell anybody, I will throw out an idea for mass transit that can beat the car. Now, there are some other logistical nightmares that might make this idea impossible, certainly it's more of an urban solution than a method of connecting urban areas but if cities were wired this way then the train would actually not suck. I put that proviso there because you might thinking I'm poking fun when I put forth the idea but I'm not, it's just an idea with serious technical limitations. Here goes: people movers. Anybody that's been in one of the large airports in this country has seen them, as a kid I always thought they were the coolest part about being at O'Hare. Endless belts, possibly with seats in one area, replacing the sidewalks of our nation would solve the majority of our transport problems. There are major technical problems as I said, but if you think about it they do all the things mass transit currently cannot and it's more efficient than cars. As you pointed out walking give you the same stop and start conveniences as a car, but as I said walking sucks. Sitting on a chair connected to a people mover gives the best of both worlds. Just not sure how they interact with motor vehicles (which we'll still need, if only delivery trucks to supply stores). And I'm not sure how the chair idea deals with the end of the belt. And clearly you won't be able to sit in one chair for the whole trip because you'll prboably switch belts to make turns at intersections. But the basic idea is there, and, unlike trains, it's actually a technology that's newer than the car and more likely to be able to replace the car.

Just a thought anyway. I've noticed from these threads that most of the pro-train folks focus on how to get from town to town. While most of the pro-car folks (myself included) focus on how to get around town. For anything to replace the car it will have to solve both equation at least as well as the car does (which, as you guys note, the car doesn't do a good job of solving the multitown travel equation, so it won't have to be real good at that). What you need is something that gets me from work to home via the mall and the grocery store about as well as the car, which trains will never be able to do, but probably something else can.

Good points, all. And you're right of course, to point out that economic development has had far more to do with the deterioration of small town life than have cars and freeways.

But strictly on an aesthetic basis, I still maintain that cars have damaged our cities. No one can convince me that my hometown in Indiana, for instance, really needed five new strip malls or that they have someone improved the quality of life of Eastsiders. As I see it, developers bought up land on the cheap, built stip malls on the cheap, and rented the strip malls out to national chains with economies of scale. The national chains lowered prices and benefited from massive advertising campaigns. The smaller mom and pop shops closer to downtown lose business, and ultimately go under. Eventually, everyone finds themselves driving an extra 15 minutes to get to WalMart or Sams or Outback Steakhouse, and more farmland gets swallowed up in concrete. Can people buy toilet paper and ground beef and prime rib a bit cheaper than before? Absolutely. But we all miss the way our town used to be, with the little family owned shops and the vibrant Main Street.

I'll concede that my argument is more aesthetic than economic--and therefore may not be much of an argument at all!

As for the slow leeching of talent and youth from our small towns, I blame that on corporatism run amok rather than the car.

I have a high suspicion that if you sum up all of the money currently raised by federal state and local gas taxes, add in all of the money raised by car fees, truck fees, licensing, driver's licenses, etc. then take out all of the money spent on roads and highways, that you will have a huge pile of money left over. In other words, roads pay for themselves and are not subsidized by taxpayers.

A simple intellectual exercise.

Gas taxes run about 40 cents per gallon and fleet economy is about 20 mpg, so 2 cents per mile (all those other fees barely pay for the DMV operations they are related to).

A really, really, really busy urban 6 lane highway might get 180,000 cars per day per mile (maximum capacity is about 2500 cars per lane per hour - one car every 1.5 seconds).

180,000 cars/mile * 2 cents/mile * 365 days = $1,314,000 annual gas tax revenue per mile.

On the other hand, the cost of building an urban freeway is easily $100 million per mile (Boston's Central Artery is costing over $1 billion per mile), to say nothing of maintenance and police costs, lost property tax revenue, 4-5% interest costs on bonded indebtedness to finance construction, etc.

Rural interstates are cheaper, but also have much less traffic to generate revenue. It is clear that a "profit and loss" statement on almost ALL highways would show an operating ratio of close to 10 (that is, gas tax revenue is 1/10th of costs).

The interstate system is not supported by self generated gas taxes, but by gas taxes from mileage driven on local roads, which in turn are paid for from the property tax rolls. In addition, most states take large sums of money from General Funds (Income and Sales taxes mostly) to augment their gas tax money. For example, Virginia gets up around 50% of its state highway funding from the sales tax, I believe.

To put it more succinctly, my gas taxes from driving on local roads to the supermarket supports your use of interstates for commuting, since I commute on the train and mostly use the PA and NJ turnpikes for my intercity trips.

A typical drive from New York to Florida would be subsidized to the tune of $200 each way by property taxes and sales and income taxes. The typical 15 miles each way on the expressway commuter is getting a subsidy of well over $1500 per year from property taxes.

A typical single complex interchange project between two or more expressways is providing an annual subsidy $150-$300 per year for each driver using it daily.

A typical large "free" interstate bridge carrying 200,000 vehicles per day, like the Woodrow Wilson over the Potomac on the Beltway (its replacement is expected to cost $1 billion, with another $1.75 billion for its approaches), represents a "gift" to daily users of roughly $1750 per year over and above gas taxes derived from use.

Clearly, drivers are subsidized by thousands of dollars per year. Imagine the gas tax going to $4 per gallon, or having to pay $0.15 per mile tolls and $4 fees for each major bridge crossing, and you can imagine a world where automobiles actually support themselves.

On the other hand, Amtrak makes about 75% of its costs, and has been steadily closing that gap despite being starved for capital, and thus prevented from starting more variable profit routes to cover its large fixed cost overhead.

Rail sure seems like a better mode financially to me as a taxpayer, seeing as most trains make money on direct operations costs (though the system isn't large enough anymore to cover fixed costs).

Is the train going to pick you up at the door? Is the train going to drop you off at your office door? Won't you still need your automobile to take to the station, take you around town, or to take you anywhere else the train doesn't go? Are you going to carry your groceries home from the train-accessable grocery store every day in your backpack?

I only have one car because I ride a train from a station 1/2 mile from my house to my office, which is 2 blocks from the center city station. My wife uses the car for errands, as she doesn't work. In much of the built up area of Philadelphia and its suburbs where I live, it is difficult to find a house more than 2 mile from a commuter train line. And the commuter trains go places with roughly 1/3 of the regions jobs readily accessible, mostly Center City and local business districts in Philly, but also certian major suburban office parks, like Radnor and Conshohocken.

Its an extremely pleasant and much more affordable lifestyle (no 2nd $5000-6000 per year car to pay for), and my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs, rather than mooching off gas taxes derived from local road mileage, said roads being paid for by local property taxes, and not gas taxes.

There is a big difference between getting around a big city with rail and getting around smaller towns and between small towns.

You don't know anything about how the cities of Raleigh, Durham, Cary, Apex, Chapel Hill and the others in the area are structured and where employers are located. Trust me, train will fail here. IBM and Cisco are 2 of the major employers in the area. Each of their locations cover more than 10,000 acres. I sure hope that the train will stop in front of my building, if not I have one hell of a f**king walk. Oh, not to mention that the closest train station to my house is going to be 15 miles away!

And the socialized central planners who designed RTP, where most people here work, are at fault for the traffic problems to begin with and now those same people want to "Fix" the problem they created with a big giant waste of tax money. How did they create the problem and what is the problem? Well, the problem is traffic, commuter traffic. And why is it a problem? It is a problem because when they designed and zoned "The Park" they zoned it so that there was NO residential property allowed. Thus insuring that there would be 100% commuter employment. If they had allowed residential developement, both subdivisions and high density we would not have the traffic problems they are trying to fix. People who worked in the park would live in the park. An entire city would have been created at it would have been self sustaining. But no, the social engineers who knew best then think they know best now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

and my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs

Buzz! Wrongo! Your local property taxes don't pay for anything on interstates. Period.

The interstates cannot pay for themselves from self-generated gas taxes, because the taxes are far too low. They rely on gas taxes generated from driving on local roads (which is by far the largest source of vehicle miles); and local roads are paid for by local property taxes through local Streets Departments. My trips to the grocery store on the street in front of my house subsidize your interstate commute. So do my drives to the in-laws on the PA Turnpike.

Oh, and also: BUZZ, WRONGO AGAIN. The current US Highway Trust Fund has expanded it's assets for the last 15 years and spends less each year than it receives. No new $4.00/gallon taxes are need to pay for the Interstate Highway system. Period.

Again, Interstates exist because they get money from gas taxes derived from non-interstate driving. No Interstate could ever have been built based on the gas taxes produced from driving upon the interstates alone. And certainly, no private companies are coming forward with new Interstate proposals.

Anyway, the gas tax only pays for construction. It doesn't pay for maintainance and police.

Why don't you read the first 200 posts here or at least check your facts before you jump into the discussion with your ignorant comments and hateful namecalling?

I did Mr. Balrog666. Why don't you read my factual analysis of how Interstates don't make their own money for costs, but suck it out of the property tax roles and admit you are wrong?

my only gripe is that my property taxes and gas taxes go to subsidize big whiners like you who would never dream of supporting $4 per gallon gas taxes to get cars to pay their true costs, rather than mooching off gas taxes derived from local road mileage, said roads being paid for by local property taxes, and not gas taxes.

Several states fund roads with nothing but gas taxes. For example, Nevada pays for its roads (which are typically in very good shape) with just a gas tax. The logic being that the tax will scale with the amount of road usage. California does not do this (I believe their road funding comes from the general fund) and has some of the worst roads in the west. The price of gas in Nevada is typically about the same as it is in California and sometimes a little cheaper. So clearly it doesn't have to cost that much.

What this doesn't take into account is the relative efficiency of the road building agencies in various states. California spends something like 12 times as much money per road mile per year as Nevada, and with much worse results. CalTrans is widely considered the gold standard of gross inefficiency, so this has to be taken into consideration when you calculate how much a gas tax would have to be. I personally prefer the Nevada model, since if people stopped driving the agency would become defunded (currently though, they seem to have more money and time than they know what to do with and have resorted to adding non-essentials to the road system since the roads are pretty much in excellent shape).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.